Mark Robinson sharply criticized Abdul El-Sayed after the Michigan Democrat argued that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution should take into account the types of firearms available when the Second Amendment was written.

Robinson played a video clip of El-Sayed discussing originalism and gun rights before responding at length to El-Sayed’s argument about muskets and modern firearms.

El-Sayed framed the issue around the historical context in which the Constitution was written.

"And originalism is the idea that you should interpret the Constitution in the context in which the Constitution was written. When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So yeah, everyone should have like, equal rights to a musket. And so the question we need to be asking is: Are there some guns that are built just to kill as many people as possible? And do we really think that those guns ought to be just publicly available?"

Gun Laws Have Changed! Protect yourself by knowing where you can and cannot carry your firearm, so you can travel with confidence.

Robinson rejected that interpretation, arguing that the Second Amendment refers broadly to “arms” rather than specifically limiting the right to the weapons available in the late 18th century.

"You heard that right. All right, you dumb nanny. It doesn't say muskets in the Constitution. If you read it, it says arms."

Robinson argued that the musket represented one of the leading firearms available at the time the amendment was adopted and said the constitutional language was intentionally broader than the name of a specific weapon.

"And that brown vest musket that they had back in those days that was the premier firearm of the day, and they were telling the people back then that they had a right to hold those weapons. So the premier weapon of today is the AR-15 in this country."

He continued by arguing that El-Sayed’s interpretation incorrectly treats the Second Amendment as though it had specifically named muskets.

"It didn't say musket; it said arms. And at that time, like I said, the premier weapon was that musket. But it don't say musket; it says arms, and it says that for a reason, dummy."

Robinson then extended El-Sayed’s argument to the First Amendment, saying a strictly technology-specific interpretation of constitutional protections would create problems for modern journalism and communication.

"So if we want to be originalists, like you said, let's be originalists. That means the press can no longer use cameras. They can no longer use microphones. They can no longer use satellites. They can no longer use the internet."

Robinson said that if constitutional protections were limited only to technology that existed when the document was written, the press would effectively be restricted to the tools available at the time.

"The only thing they can use is what the Constitution was written with, and what was it? A quill pen. Let's try that, Mister Originalist."

His criticism then turned from the constitutional argument itself to El-Sayed’s credibility and intentions.

Robinson accused El-Sayed of presenting an interpretation that he said was either intentionally misleading or based on a misunderstanding of the Constitution.

"You know idiots like this. They always put their doggone foot in their mouth."

He also argued that voters should view El-Sayed’s position on the Second Amendment as an indication of how he would approach gun rights if elected to federal office.

"You trust this creep? If you vote for this creep, you are an absolute traitor to your state and this nation because this guy means us no good, and his ignorance or his supposed ignorance. He knows better than this, but he's posing this out to people who won't know any better."

Robinson continued by saying El-Sayed’s constitutional argument left only two possibilities in his view.

"He is either ignorant or he is a liar. One or the other."

Robinson said he believed El-Sayed’s comments demonstrated that he would not protect Second Amendment rights in Washington.

"This guy doesn't tell the truth about anything, and he's certainly not telling the truth about the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And he certainly doesn't intend to go to Washington, D.C., and protect that Second Amendment for any of us."

Are you really that ignorant or are you a liar? https://t.co/8HbeCF9oQF

— Mark Robinson (@markrobinsonNC) October 21, 2026

 

 

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.